Q&A: House's Rocket Scientist 'Apprehensive' on Budget

Below:

Next story in Science

As a rocket scientist, Democratic Rep. Rush Holt has now served
the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey for more than a
decade. He has helped monitor the nuclear programs of such
countries as Iraq, Iran, North Korea and the former Soviet Union,
and has served as assistant director for the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory.

Holt recently won his seventh consecutive term during the Nov. 4,
2010, midterm elections. The Democratic Party retained control of
the Senate, but lost control of the House to a new Republican
majority.

The Republican Party's
Pledge to America proposes to roll back non-military
discretionary spending to 2008 levels, which would mean cuts for
federal agencies that fund or perform science research and
development. The Obama administration had warned agencies to
build 5 percent cuts into their proposed 2012 budgets relative to
2011, but the GOP plan would cut deeper.

Q: How do you think the recent midterm election
results will impact policies and funding for science and
technology?

A: The basic point is that I'm apprehensive
about what's going to happen. We haven't completed the Competes
Act — the reauthorization of the America Competes Act. The House
has passed it, and the Senate committee has reported favorably on
it but with no action. This provides the framework for all the
research funding of the NSF [National Science Foundation], NIST
[National Institutes of Standard and Technology], the National
Institutes of Health [NIH], the Department of Energy and so
forth. This was an important advance. The previous Competes Act
and this reauthorization are really important. We really need to
get that done.

We also need to get appropriations done. As it is, we're
operating on a continuing resolution, and I'm not at all
optimistic that we'll get the appropriations done for science,
energy, commerce ... On both the authorization and appropriation,
I'm afraid that we're not going to move forward, and that worries
me.

I don't need to tell you all the "Gathering Storm" [report]
statistics, but it is important to move forward. In the follow-up
[2010 report], it shows not so much that the U.S. has slipped,
but that we haven't moved forward and everyone else has. That's
true in
science education, innovation and research. We're losing
ground relative to others. (Congress commissioned a 2005 report,
titled "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," which called for the
U.S. to boost scientific research and education.) That's why we
need America Competes, and why we need to make permanent the
R&D tax credit, and why we need to do other things to
stimulate private sector innovation. I have legislation that
would provide individual tax credits for research-intensive small
businesses.

We want to do things to encourage innovation in the private
sector, and certainly there are things we've got to do in science
education. Some of that is government funding, much of it is not.

Q: What kind of science funding cuts are we
talking about?

A: With regard to the public sector, if you look
at the Republican Pledge to America, if they carry it out as it's
laid there — if the new majority acts on that — we'll be reducing
NSF by almost 19 percent, the Department of Energy's [Office of]
Science by almost 18 percent, NIH by about 9 percent, NOAA
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] by 34
percent...

The crazy thing about this is that they say they're doing it for
fiscal discipline, and the fact is that all of this is really not
going to balance the budget. We're talking about something that's
about a percent of the budget and it makes a huge difference in
this research, but it's miniscule in its budgetary effects. So
it's really short-sighted. We've made some real investments in
the past years. I helped get $22 billion of new
money for science research into the [American Recovery and
Reinvestment A ct] . They were put in there
for short-term job benefits, but also because they set the stage
for longer-term growth. But now if they kind of yank the reins
back after a couple of years of trying to move forward in the
public sector for research, it will have a very bad effect.

I think it will be pretty easy for [Republicans] to cut if they
want to, and they claim that they want to. I think it will be
very devastating. Federal research is only a few percent of the
nation's discretionary budget — only a percent or so of the
overall budget. It won't help balance the budget, and it will
harm the economy in the short and long term.

Q: Are there any particular areas of research
that could suffer more than others? How about energy?

A: Certainly on energy … the thing about the NSF
is that it's across the board. Who would have thought that
library science research would lead to Google? Who thought
nuclear magnetic resonance would lead to MRIs [brain scans]? Who
would think atomic light absorption would lead to lasers? The NSF
has really contributed greatly to our economy. The Department of
Energy's Offices of Science and Energy are really important, and
to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in each one of those
could hurt us in our efforts to be competitive in the marketplace
for having efficient technologies. Whether it's building
materials or transportation, drive trains or batteries, if we're
not making these investments, we're losing out on the marketplace
to countries that are making those investments.

There's easily going to be a trillion-dollar market — and that's
not an exaggeration — out in the world for these technologies.
Cutting back on funding would certainly be short- sighted.

Q: On the topic of energy, do you know what the
Republicans have planned for ARPA-E? (A Department of Energy
agency that focuses on funding
high-risk, high-reward research aimed at energy innovation.)

A: I fear they will regard ARPA-E as a creation
of the Democrats and therefore something that should be cut as a
matter of principle. Clearly a major justification for ARPA-E —
not the sole justification but a major one — is dealing with
stresses to our climate. There are so many in the new majority
who question whether there's anything at all wrong with
what's happening to our climate.

Q: Is there still some common ground where
Democrats and Republicans can work together on the climate change
issue? How about reframing it in terms of energy security?

A: It's possible. I hope we can find some common
ground. In the past I've worked with Republicans like Vernon
Ehlers (R-Mich.) and Judy Biggert (R-Ill). Vernon has retired,
and Judy is still around.

During the campaign I heard various people — including my
opponent — say that environmental regulations are not founded in
science but ideology. I disagree. I think this has been generally
a more science-based environmental program than we've seen
previously. They've been saying the attention to climate is
ideology and not science — I beg to differ. I say that this comes
from the work of thousands and thousands of scientists. It is
opposition to any effort to address climate change that is based
more on ideology than in science. But there is that difference,
and I wouldn't be surprised if they act in a way — apart from the
budget — that will reverse what has been happening.

Q: How much can the Republicans do to roll back
the Obama administration's policies?

A: In terms of reversing administration policies
about environmental protection, they will be somewhat limited.
But in terms of cutting funding for the EPA [Environmental
Protection Agency], they'll be in a position to do that. To keep
moving forward with these programs will require both the House
and the Senate. And I fear that the House will say no.